Home

Great attention was given to the name of this initiative. One consideration was that the name should be easy on the tongue. Hence, THE ABC Journey. The most important consideration, however, was that the name should capture the aspirations of the journey. This is a journey Towards a Healthier Eritrea, a Better Country. It is a journey to build the principal democratic institutions and cultivate a democratic culture.

The name also captures the challenge that lies ahead. Since “ABC” refers to the first three letters of the English alphabet, it is often used to signify an ab initio beginning. Building a democratic government from scratch in a diverse country with no prior democratic experience, no agreed-upon ground rules, and at a time when consensus may be difficult to achieve—combined with the anarchistic tendencies of Eritreans—makes this task uniquely challenging. Eritrea will almost certainly face this challenge in the near future. The consequences of failure could be devastating.

Adequate and timely preparation can hardly be a disadvantage. It is therefore vital that we, Eritreans, begin learning and practicing the ABCs of democratic government and democratic culture now. The journey of opposing the current regime began long ago. Beyond opposition, however, there have been few attempts to prepare for Eritrea’s future through consensus-building and institution-building. Consequently, little meaningful progress has been achieved. This lack of progress itself indicates the difficulties that lie ahead.

Even after a good beginning, every stage can be improved. There can always be a better country. Thus, this is a journey that can continue indefinitely.

In this journey, we aspire to establish two of the three principal pillars of a modern government—the legislature and the judiciary—and, through these institutions, build consensus and foster a democratic culture. In doing so, we hope to gain practical experience in operating a modern democratic government while preparing for Eritrea’s transition. The achievements we seek range from the modest to the ambitious. At best, we may establish a strong, government-like institution capable of guiding the opposition and helping fill the institutional void. At worst, we may fail entirely. We do not aspire to fail. Yet even failure would be an achievement. Failure to build consensus, for example, would teach us—if further lessons are needed—how difficult Eritrea’s future may be. It would teach us how demanding democracy truly is and reveal the extent to which we, Eritreans, including the best among us, are genuine democrats.

If all Eritreans support democracy, one could say that there is already a considerable degree of consensus. However, democracy as a concept of governance is too broad and insufficiently defined. Democracy takes many forms, and throughout history, citizens have gone to war over the particular form of democracy they wished to establish.

The challenge of creating democratic institutions ab initio is real. It is therefore hoped that a critical majority of Eritreans will accept the following fundamental premises. This mission is based upon these assumptions.

First, all Eritreans accept that they live under a political community and are no longer in a state of nature—that is, complete anarchy. Living in an organized society requires commonly agreed-upon rules, a willingness to compromise in developing those rules, and a commitment to abide by them once established.

Second, not every citizen can be part of the government. Admittedly, the greater the participation of citizens in public affairs, the stronger a democracy becomes, and there are many ways in which every individual can influence the democratic process. Practical realities, however, make it impossible for all Eritreans to serve as president, parliamentarians, judges, or other senior officials. Representative democracy is therefore an indispensable component of democracy.

If the United States, with a population of approximately 350 million, is represented by 535 members of Congress, then a legislature of 50 members would represent Eritrea’s estimated population of five million more proportionately than the U.S. Congress represents the American population. For simplicity in calculating percentages, it is recommended that the national legislature consist of 50 individuals—hopefully the wisest among us.

How do we identify the best 50 among us? Thanks to technology, we can now elect them through an open and transparent process. For obvious reasons, only Eritreans living in the free world could participate in electing their representatives. Nevertheless, all interested Eritreans would be welcome. To this end, a constituent body of diaspora Eritreans with known identities could easily be established. Any interested Eritrean with internet access, regardless of geographic location, could become a member of this constituent body. Such a body could be established within weeks through a Facebook page, with voting conducted using the tools available on that platform. There is encouraging experience demonstrating that this is feasible.

Based on preliminary observations, the number of interested Eritreans appears to range between 5,000 and 15,000. Using simplified election rules while giving due consideration to the representation of minorities and disadvantaged groups, the 50 most broadly supported candidates could be openly identified. A national representative body elected by a constituent body—or electoral college—of between 5,000 and 15,000 participants would satisfy the representative requirements of democracy to a significant degree. It may not be perfect, but in pursuit of an elusive perfection, we should not overlook what is practical and achievable.

These 50 representatives would constitute the national legislature. The legislature could gradually guide current opposition efforts while preparing for the country’s transition by building consensus through draft legislation and other proposals designed to facilitate the transition. Such a body would, of course, possess no legally binding authority, although such authority could eventually be conferred upon it. At the very least, high-quality work produced by such a legislature could make a significant contribution to Eritrea’s future. Authority is better earned than prescribed. Just as models, drafts, and templates are valuable, the products of this legislature could prove immensely useful when the opportunity for transition arrives.

We must address the anarchistic tendencies that make democracy difficult to sustain. We must be willing to accept the decisions of those whom we elect to lead us. Consensus may be the ideal method of identifying common ground. Political reality, however, often requires decision-making by majority when consensus cannot be achieved. Accordingly, even the 50 representatives will not always agree, and it is therefore necessary to accept decisions reached by a simple majority of the legislature.

The legislature would begin by adopting its own rules of procedure, including rules governing quorum requirements, voting thresholds, and other procedural fundamentals. This task is daunting, but postponing it will not make it any easier tomorrow.

Thus far, another principal branch of modern government—the judiciary—has understandably been absent from the opposition and largely suppressed by the regime in Eritrea. As much as consensus is not always possible within deliberative bodies, amicable resolution of disputes is not always achievable. Human nature guarantees disagreements, and not all disputes can be resolved through dialogue alone. Just as a legislature requires decision-making procedures when consensus proves elusive, every country requires judges when disputes cannot be settled amicably.

An essential feature of many modern democracies is the willingness of citizens to remain bound by the decisions of a small number of judges. In the United States, for example, the votes of merely five of the nine Supreme Court Justices can determine issues with profound consequences for the entire nation. The highest court is frequently called upon to resolve constitutional questions that are deeply political in nature.

Eritreans have limited experience with democracy. Living under the authority of judges appointed for long terms—or even for life—is even less familiar. One purpose of this journey is therefore to begin experiencing this necessary feature of constitutional democracy. Democracy contains elements that appear undemocratic, and one such element is an independent judiciary.

In most constitutional systems, the legislature plays a role in establishing the judiciary. Our legislature could perform that role as well. Initially, only a supreme court may be necessary. Such an institution could realistically be sustained despite the limited financial resources of the opposition. If the United States functions with nine justices, perhaps three would be sufficient for Eritrea. It is hoped that the most qualified individuals could serve the nation in their spare time, using their own tools and resources. The demands of the position need not exceed those required to produce serious academic research or books.

The executive branch is less unfamiliar within the Eritrean opposition. Executive bodies have existed in various civic organizations, although not at the level of a cabinet of ministers within a modern government. Establishing a head of state or government together with a cabinet of ministers may be unrealistic at this stage, as doing so would move into the territory of a government in exile. While such arrangements are not unprecedented, the limited historical examples deserve careful study. Nevertheless, an executive branch could still be developed with modest objectives. These objectives could include conducting studies and developing recommendations for reform across all ministries. For example, a minister responsible for social welfare could lead studies aimed at developing comprehensive plans for the rehabilitation of Eritrean society. Simply understanding the true magnitude of the country’s challenges would itself be a valuable contribution.

We aspire to undertake this journey at a level that closely resembles the realities Eritrea will eventually face. Achieving this objective will require broad participation. If this proves impractical, even operating a mock or experimental government would provide experience much closer to reality.

A school of government, if you will.

This idea was first conceived several years ago. Since then, technological developments have significantly increased its practicality. Advances in communication technologies have made it easier than ever for Eritreans across the world to participate in a common civic undertaking. More recently, the rapid development of artificial intelligence has further strengthened this possibility. Websites and digital platforms can now be designed, developed, and maintained with far fewer resources. Discussions and debates can be efficiently summarized, while large volumes of public input can be organized, categorized, and analyzed in ways that were previously impractical. Artificial intelligence can also assist in drafting documents, translating content, conducting research, and improving access to information for participants. While technology cannot substitute for sound judgment, democratic values, or principled leadership, it can substantially reduce the logistical barriers to building institutions and fostering meaningful participation. The opportunities available today make this journey more feasible than when the idea was originally conceived.

Thank you.

Sponsors of the Idea